User talk:DanielRigal

Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you!

Archives 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. 2019. 2020. 2021. 2022. 2023. Automated Messages.

About a third of the essay Exiting the Vampires Castle is about Russell Brand, and I do still think that's worth noting. But I think you are right that Mark Fisher's support a long time ago might be misconstrued. So I have added an explanatory footnote that makes it clear that the essay was published long before accusations were made against Mr Brand. I hope that is acceptable. Best wishes. 182.153.95.138 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP did lodge a complaint on ANI, but I reverted it for being such nonsense, and not even being in its own section. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I missed that when I was looking at the whole /64. By the time I did see it it was a moot issue. One of these days I'll get my head around IPv6 properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just coming here to say exactly what LilianaUwU said. Thanks Liliana for laughing the comment off of ANI and thank you Daniel for reporting the IPv6. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you have omitted your objection upon reviewing other articles, I shall wait for a few days to observe whether other editors offer comments. If no comments are forthcoming, I will proceed with the edit, ensuring alignment with similar articles featuring UK MPs such as Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, and Ed Miliband. Erzan (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RfC so I think it has to run its course. That's a few days. Somebody else, uninvolved, will come along and close it saying what the outcome was. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC says "the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement" and "When a discussion has naturally ended, you should consider ending the RfC"

I will wait to see if any other editors object. If not, I will make the edit. Erzan (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this deletion – what would it take for the song to be worth noting? It's obviously relevant to the page. The band is not as famous as Alestorm, but the album containing the song was published by TVT Records, and the artist had a song in the first Rock Band (video game). ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be OK if the band had an article and it would definitely be OK if a Reliable Source had commented on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The band's existence is noted on List of songs in Rock Band#Bonus_songs. If the genius.com reference is good enough for Alestorm, I think it's good enough for Honest Bob. I'm going to put the paragraph back for now ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about this but I'm not going to push it. We can see if anybody else objects. DanielRigal (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a representative at Atlas Copco Group and wish many updates for our company page. I also observed that a few weeks back, there was a discussion regarding the deletion of our company’s page, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts in advocating for its retention. Given your familiarity with the page and Wikipedia’s guidelines, I am reaching out to seek your guidance and assistance in updating and improving the content of our company’s page. I understand the importance of neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s policies, and I aim to ensure that any updates made are accurate and well-sourced. Could you kindly guide me on the best way to proceed with this? If you have any specific suggestions or would be willing to assist directly, I would greatly appreciate it.

Merlinantony (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there is no easy way to navigate this because of WP:COI. I think the best thing to do is make suggestions on the Talk page of the article rather than make edits to the article yourself (unless it is 100% uncontroversial things like correcting spelling or reverting blatant vandalism). You should also follow the disclosure instructions at WP:DISCLOSE. The biggest problem with the article at the moment is the way that much of it is sourced to internal company publications. If you can suggest alternative, independent, sources then please suggest those on the Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel. I can suggest a few alternatives for the sources. However, the main update here is that Atlas Copco Group has a new visual and operational Identity. Hence the name of the article has to be "Atlas Copco Group" instead of Atlas Copco. (Atlas Copco is now a brand under the group). The logo and images to be changed too

https://view.news.eu.nasdaq.com/view?id=b1e5869947864abad8123e504ffc09663&lang=en&src=micro

https://www.electronicspecifier.com/news/atlas-copco-group-s-new-brand-identity

https://www.worldpumps.com/content/news/atlas-copco-names-next-president-and-ceo/

Atlas Copco (companieshistory.com)

http://ct.moreover.com/?a=53650214449&p=1yx&v=1&x=0FWb0o2inbiioYg_Uk0TYg

Merlinantony (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you could revert the apparent Frankfurt School conspiracy theory subscriber who keeps inserting "Jewish" into Critical Theory, against consensus? And maybe file a 3RRN filing if needed, or talk to an uninvolved admin? I don't have the bandwidth at the moment. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Only just seen this. It looks like they are already blocked and that ClueBot has latched on their bad edits too so hopefully it will revert any socks trying the same thing. DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that belatedly. I had started looking for an active editor who was aware of the context for the bad edits, but as it turned out I didn't post on your page until the fire was over (for now). Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why MOS:NOLINKQUOTE exists. The guideline says: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.. I don’t know why you have made an edit which goes against a Wikipedia guideline. I believe that you edit in good faithj, but I’m beginning to feel WP:HOUNDED. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking this is perfectly within that spirit of conservatism. There is no Original Synthesis here. It is just a link to the exact thing being spoken about. That is not an matter open to differing interpretations. If you want to take the link out of the quote, then I'm neutral on that, but I don't see any reason to remove it completely. I am not hounding you but if we are tapping signs then WP:TEND might be my counter-tap so let's not get into doing that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have said you are neutral about taking the link out of the quote, I am doing so. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant retaining the link somewhere outside of the quotation, not getting rid of it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed the link in the section on Conversion therapy. What do you have in mind? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that "exploratory therapy" is the same as "gender exploratory therapy" then I ask you to read the discussion I started here some months ago. Several editors are very strongly of the opinion that it is not, and have argued against including balancing sources on that basis. I disagree but I'm not going to keep flogging that dead horse.

I think that were that section rendered in an NPOV way to enumerate what is a genuine controversy - as I suggested months ago - it would be possible to link from within this quote, but as it currently is, this is absolutely a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree they were referring to a form of conversion therapy. Void if removed (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]